Long-time readers of The Economist will recall a time when the editor of this once great newspaper would remain anonymous until - upon retiring - he would write a single editorial under his own name.

Amongst the many ways in which John Micklethwaite has dragged this once great British institution into the gutter is his use of it as a platform to promote his own, rather nasty, elitist views of the world.

Long time readers of The Economist will recall a time when it held the principle of self-determination paramount. As recently as October 2000, The Economist's Model Constitution for Europe included the provision: "Any Member State may leave the Union at any time." Back then it was recognised that the right of secession was ultimately the only weapon which could prevent corrupt politicians using central government to pursue their own interests and those of their cronies.

Today The Economist - under John Micklethwaite - actively campaigns against any suggestion of secession from Europe, neutralising the effectiveness that weapon.

Today The Economist - under John Micklethwaite - actively campaigns against any suggestion of secession for Scotland, abandoning the principle of self-determination.

Long time readers of The Economist will recall a time when it was a champion genuine democracy: that the right of citizens - under certain conditions - to override corrupt politicians was the only sure guarantee that they would continue to govern on behalf of the People.

Today, The Economist - under John Micklethwaite - actively campaigns against any move to democratisation. The only time it ever editorialises on the subject is if it sees any opportunity to report some supposed disaster caused by the Stinking Ignorant Masses exercising a direct vote.

Indeed, reading The Economist - under John Micklethwaite - one could be forgiven for thinking that the only place in the world where voters have any direct input into policy is California . . . and that they use it exclusively for running budget deficits and generally causing mayhem!

The spectacular success of genuine democracy - not only in California (where it has recently been used to force open primaries against the self-interest of entrenched politicians) but in other US states, in German Lander, and most notably in Switzerland - is assiduously ignored.

One might have thought that a considered view of the future of the state would take as its model the most peaceful and prosperous state in the world, a state which also happens to be the world’s most democratic and decentralised.

One might have thought that. Unless the real purpose is to promote is something quite different.

The Economist - under John Micklethwaite - has become nothing but a "Mouthpiece of Privilege" using the rhetoric of classical liberalism to mask an unashamedly elitist agenda.

For The Economist - under John Micklethwaite - "liberty" has taken on an odd and distinctive meaning. Liberty is now so important that the Elite reserve unto themselves the right to determine precisely which "liberties" shall prevail and which shall not. Chief among the “liberties” which shall not prevail are the liberty of the People to choose the form of government they would like for their state, the liberty of the People to choose what they would like their Democracy to be.

When the privileged Elite reserve the right to define “liberty”, you can be sure that at the top of their list will be the liberty to go on being privileged, the liberty to go on being the Elite!

John Micklethwaite's simplistic prescription for reducing the role of the state will not act for the benefit of people in general. In the absence of an active state, the abuse of power will not miraculously disappear. Power will simply be exercised by those with market power: the top 1% of the top 1%, those who control monopolies and near monopolies.

In the absence of an active state, the wealth and power of this Elite will be transmitted to their children, either blatantly or under the guise of a supposed "meritocracy" where "merit" is defined self-referentially to be those qualities which the Elite have been able to buy for their kiddies. In the absence of an active state inter-generational mobility will be eliminated.

Perhaps that’s the idea.

John Micklethwaite's "utopia" is nothing but the winding back of the Modern Era. It is nothing but a nasty program to abolish the Modern Era ideals of self-determination, genuine democracy, and a notion of the fundamental equality of all people.

If we didn't have the Baby Boomer bubble the welfare state would work just fine. When you couple that with falling birth rates though it creates a temporary problem.

It's only fair (and feasible) for these costs to be borne by the Boomers themselves primarily through a restructuring of these programs, but voters have a tendency to try to shift the costs of their benefits onto anyone else but themselves and the baby boomers also constitute the largest and most reliable voting bloc. So this may be one drawback of democracy.

But it's not even really the voters who are primarily the problem. The concentration of wealth into a few individuals hands creates distortions in the political process. These moneyed interests are attempting to co-opt the state and this is undermining the functionality of the democratic process. Unpopular and frankly bad, self-serving ideas are finding their way into the discourse through the distorting power of the concentrated fortunes amassing to these select few individuals. Socialized medicine would be much more efficient than what we do now but money in politics is thrown against it wholesale because it requires some redistribution from the wealthy to the poorer. Action might be taken on global warming were it not for the vast sums being thrown around to discredit the science. The democratic process would identify and resolve many more societal ills before they became worse problems if we did not allow for what amounts to legalized bribery to distort the process.

Also, I know this is going to sound insane to some, but compared to the fortunes that can be amassed working in the private sector, government work pays a pittance. This creates a brain drain that filters out the best possible candidates from seeking government positions and makes our bureaucracies function less efficiently than they could. There was a time around the end of the Second World War where American government worked pretty dang well because everyone was fulfilling their duties to the state in rebuilding rather than pursuing their own ends, so we had much more competent people on the whole working for the government. No offense to current government employees but if someone has an earning potential of 7+ figures a year as a CEO in the private sector versus maybe 135k a year doing a similar job for the government, they are not going to work for the government unless they are a real patriot.

The most telling point that was made is the level of ignorance which governments manage to maintain among their citizens. "If people knew how much better and cheaper [area X] does things, they would be less tolerant of what they have."
.
Of course, it is more challenging for someone who is governing efficiently to expand into other markets. Not to mention that it seems to be those governments which are most inefficient which are most inclined to go for expansion (c.f. Argentina in 1982 or Russia today).

I'd argue that the authors are much too negative about the state of US gov't.
.
For example, as evidence they talk about the US Congress' difficulty in passing a budget. Fair enough.
.
In response, which economy is growing faster, that of the US, or the UK?
.
Or, said differently, you can't buy a new refrigerator with a copy of parliament's balanced budget.